Academic Legal Writing - Eugene Volokh [79]
A Web page maintained by an individual should generally not be seen as reliable by itself, even if the person is an expert. Individual authors of Web pages often check those pages less carefully than they would check published work. If you want to cite assertions made on a person's Web page, you should:
a. check the sources yourself and then both cite the sources and give credit to the Web page;
b. if the sources aren't given, ask the author for the sources; and
c. at least, if you can't check the statement yourself, confirm that the author still stands by the statement, and has not lost confidence in it.
Because Web pages change often, you should keep printed copies of all the pages on which you rely. That way, if the document changes, moves, or vanishes, you'll still have the copy in case someone asks for it.
6. Wikipedia
Over five hundred student articles cite the online Wikipedia encyclopedia. Unlike with most encyclopedias, anyone is allowed to create Wikipedia entries, and generally to update existing entries. This is an unorthodox approach for an encyclopedia, but the theory is that (a) those people who want to spend time writing entries tend to be knowledgeable, and (b) even when those people err, their errors end up getting corrected by others.
Perhaps surprisingly, the theory works most of the time. Wikipedia entries tend to be relatively accurate, probably no worse and possibly better than the typical newspaper article. (This is especially so given that many newspaper articles are written by generalist reporters who are relying on hastily assembled material from others.)
Nonetheless, while Wikipedia may sometimes be a good place to look, don't stop looking there. Instead, find the original sources that the Wikipedia entry's author relied on—they'll often be cited in the entry—and read, quote, and cite them.
First, that's the standard procedure you should use for intermediate sources (including, as I said before, newspaper articles). Second, whether or not Wikipedia is more reliable than the typical newspaper article, many readers—including law review editors who are deciding whether to publish your article—will assume that it's less reliable; citing to it may thus decrease your credibility.
7. Avoid falling into others' bad habits
Many law review articles don't follow these guidelines. My earliest pieces didn't, either. But there is little safety in numbers: If relying on an intermediate source leads to your making an error, you'll be faulted for that error, even if lots of other people rely on intermediate sources. Protect yourself by being more careful than others are.
B. Check the Studies on Which You Rely
Once you find the original study on which you ultimately want to rely, read it with a skeptical eye. Pretend that you disagree with the political view that the study buttresses: For instance, if the study concludes that immigration is a net minus for the economy, pretend that you support broad immigration, and try to read the study from that perspective. Can you identify some possible problems, perhaps including the ones discussed later in this chapter? Does the study confound terms that seem similar but are actually different (Part XVII.D.1, p. 155)? Does it confuse correlation with causation (Part XVII.H.1, p. 172)?
Then, search for criticisms of the study. Use Lexis or Westlaw to find the law review articles that cite the study; search also for newspaper references; and search whatever indices are available within the relevant field. (Your law school's or university's research librarians can point you in the right direction.) You can often quickly find what an article's critics say about it, and get a sense for whether you agree with the criticisms.
If you find flaws in the study, you might still be able to rely on it. But you should ask yourself how serious the flaws are; and if you think the study